I am just excited for the story mode. Especially since this will be my first Mario Maker. I mean, I could just do online and get ideas and such for building from there, but I think I will enjoy going through and being forced to do something that highlights each different feature (which I assume the story mode will do)

I just hope Nintendo borrowed some creative ideas from Mario Maker 1 levels. Not that Nintendo-built levels don't tend to be creative, but they tend to be a certain type of level that I'm not as big a fan of. It would be great of story mode had some of the types of levels where you can use Mario Maker to make not-so-Mario-like things. But that doesn't seem likely.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

While I still think that Segura's card is bad design, I'm starting to see his side of this argument. Let's say you don't buy a Witch and everybody else does. In a 3P game, since there are two sources of Curses, the Curses will run out and you'll get 10 Curses twice as quickly as in a 2P game. Because of this, it's more important to buy a Witch earlier if you want to avoid getting 10 Curses. So in a way, with more players, the net effect of buying a Witch is made more impactful in some ways and less impactful in others with the number of players. One could argue either way whether an individual Witch is stronger or weaker with more players.

You will get the Curses faster whether you buy a Witch or not. You canít change that. The only thing you can change is the total number; and that number can be changed a lot more in 2 player. A 10-0 Curse split is huge, and youíll lose. A 10-5-5 Curse split is not as big of a deal; and even if you buy Witch it only changes to 7-7-6; a smaller change.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

Dominion is not multiplayer solitaire, the Supply and the decks of the opponents matter as much as your own deck. So if the frequency of incoming junk is double as high in a 3P than in a 2P game it seems obvious that the very thing that causes this havoc is also stronger and that the very thing that helps you deal with that very problem, like a trasher or a Moat variant, also increase in strength relative to the 2P case.

I think this is a good argument that trashing is stronger in a 3 player game with Witch than a 2 player game with Witch. But the net effect of buying a Witch yourself is still actually less in 3 players... if you don't buy a Witch, you end up with 10 Curses. If you do buy a Witch, you end up with about 7. It's only 3 extra, and your opponents only end up with 2 fewer each.

In a 2 player game, the difference between buying Witch or not is whether you want Curses to be split 10-0, or 5-5.

I feel like Mario 2 is actually pretty likely... based mostly off of the fact that the screen shot listing the styles showed Mario 3D world in its own section called "Extra Styles" (plural), with an obvious hole where another style would be. I've heard some different speculation on what that 6th style could be (Mario 2, Mario Land, Mario Galaxy), and it just seems like Mario 2 is most likely. Before the introduction of 3D world, I would have said "no way would that happen", due to Mario 2 being too different from the rest. But now they've shown 3D world being it's own separate thing pretty much, so Mario 2 seems more likely.

Someone pointed out that, if your plan was to do Mario 2 and Mario 3-D World, well, wouldn't you show off Mario 2 first? Mario 3-D World is more unexpected and exciting. But, could still be Mario 2.

Yeah I watched that Ceave video, and completely disagreed with him! Mario 2 is something that fans had been asking for since Mario Maker 1 was first announced. It's an old game with lots of nostalgia; which is largely the point of Mario Maker as a whole. 3D World is something no one expected, so yes, definitely more unexpected.. but I don't' see how it's more exciting.

I also didn't really understand the Galaxy idea that he was talking about... turning 3D world into a 2D game is one thing, but Galaxy as a whole relies so heavily on the fact that it is a 3D game. Everything special about it is due to it's 3D-ness. I can't even imagine what a flattened 2D version would be like, other than just the same as any other style except with up vs down gravity in some places.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

4 player math works out the same way.

True that, I was wrong. But the junking frequency still increases (doubles from a 2P to a 3P game) which is why junkers (as well as trashers and some Reactions) become stronger with an increasing number of players.

But again, you're using stronger to mean "does more total stuff in the game". Your personal copy of Witch isn't stronger. The collective copies of Witch that all players have are stronger. You don't have a better reason to buy Witch over another card in 4 player than 2 player.

This will get cleaned up at the end of the last opponent's turn because it doesn't do anything during your next turn. I don't know whether that's intentional or not. (I'm pretty sure this is how Durations work but someone can shout at me if I'm wrong.)

Hmm, yes, I believe the rulings on Coin of the Realm called on a Caravan Guard tell us that all players discard in-play cards during all cleanup phases, not only during their own cleanup phase. It should rarely matter at all. In fact, even if it did stay in play, it would never cause you to get a coffer and a debt from your own gains (unless you gain with Vampire after playing this).

In a 2P game, the most likely outcome is +1 Coffers and your opponent gets 1 debt. I would rather buy Scout.

In a 4P game, on the other hand, the most likely outcome is +3 Coffers and your opponents each get 1 debt. +3 Coffers alone is something I would buy for $8.

In other words, Revenant is a must-buy if you have 4P, balanced if you have 3P, and Scout tier with 2P. Sure, a lot of official cards scale a bit with player count, but not nearly to the same degree; the official cards that do scale with player count are balanced at their cost regardless of player count. This argument is less about whether cards should scale or not and more about the degree to which a card should be allowed to scale.

I agree about the player balance issues, but I don't think that +3 Coffers on your next turn, as a Duration, is that powerful for a . The Coffers being delayed a turn matters a lot; as well as the card just staying out more because of Duration.

I disagree. Junkers are rarely ignorable but sometimes they are. In this very situation in which you ignore a junker in a 2P game you would perhaps not do the same in a 4P game as the junk pool is larger. So not getting that Marauder in a 2P game might be fine, you can only get a max. of 10 Ruins. But in a 4P game, if you are the only player without a Marauder, you could end up with 40 Ruins.

This isn't correct, because all the other opponents are getting some of that junk as well. Just look at the math in a game where your opponent buys Witch and you don't:

2 player game: You end up with 10 Curses, your opponent ends up with 0.3 player game, 1 opponent buys Witch, the other doesn't: You end up with 10 Curses, so does the other opponent.3 player game, both opponents buy Witch: You end up with 10 Curses, each opponent ends up with 5.

The point is that each time a Witch is played in 3 player games, 2 Curses are given out (from the pool of 20). So you can't end up with all 20, or even more than 10, unless some players are using cards like Moat also.

In fact it's much worse in a 2 player game; where you have 10 Curse cards more than your opponent. In a 3 player game, if both opponents buy Witches, you only end up with 5 Curses more than your opponents.

I see what you're saying; but that applies to all attacks in the game, especially cursers. Witches hurt your deck more if you are getting 3 Curses per turn rather than 1. So while it can be said that the attack hurts your deck more; it doesn't make it's effect when you buy it stronger.

I don't think that it applies to all attacks. Stuff that do not stack like handsize attacks are decreasing in strength in multiplayer. In a 2P game your Militia will always hit whereas in a 3P game it might hit only one opponent.

In a 4 player Militia game, you (and all players) are more likely to start your turn with only 3 cards than in a 2 player game. So Militia generally does scale in the same way Witch does.

Quote

The general point is that some Attacks scale with player count. In a 2P game you might be able to skip a junker whereas in a 3P game you cannot do so in the very same Kingdom. Gee, a lot of stuff in Dominion scales with player count. City is les ignorable and in general, all Action cards become more scarce. The mirror image of that is that a money strategy becomes on average stronger in multiplayer.

I think this issue here is just that we're using different ideas of "card strength". Witch hurts your deck more in a 4 player game than a 2 player game, yes. But when people generally talk about "card strength", they talk about it in terms of how strong it is for you to buy one (especially compared to buying something else instead). In this way, Witch doesn't become stronger. How likely it is that Witch is a good card to buy shouldn't change in 4 player compared to 2 player, because the net effect of playing one is still exactly the same for you (you draw 2 cards, and your deck has 1 less junk card than your opponents' decks). It's just that Witch will have a bigger impact on the game as a whole, because it is getting played more often. But this is true of every card no matter what. Silvers will generate more total in a 4 player game than a 2 player game. Smithy will draw more total cards. Etc.

Let's assume for the sake of simplicity that all players do play Ambassador at the same frequency and are always able to trash 2 cards.

In a 2P game you trash 2 via your own Ambassador and get 1 via the one of your opponent. Net trash 1.In a 3P game you trash 2 and get 2 via the ones of your opponents. Net effect of 0.In a 4P game you trash 2 and get 3 via the ones of your opponents. Net junk 1.

This makes Ambassador arguably the most player count sensitive card, it literally changes its core behaviour from a net trasher to a net junker! If you play a Kingdom with 2P you can easily use Ambassador as trasher whereas in the very same Kingdom with 4P you have to either rely on another trasher or, if there are no other trashers, Ambassador does not reduce but amplifies the junk.

I see what you're saying; but that applies to all attacks in the game, especially cursers. Witches hurt your deck more if you are getting 3 Curses per turn rather than 1. So while it can be said that the attack hurts your deck more; it doesn't make it's effect when you buy it stronger.

I don't get what you mean about Ambassador scaling; if you consider giving out 3 junk cards instead of 1 junk card scaling, then Witch, and all Cursers, would be considered to be scaling; more powerful with more players. But that's not how it works.

Whether the total amount of junk Ambassador gives your opponents is more or less than the total number of junk it trashes for you is irrelevant. It always trashes (up to) 2 cards, and gives out 1 junk to each opponent.

For me I think it's controllable autoscroll, variable water level (it's a shame that it's likely locked to forest levels, but oh well), scroll stop (for bonus rooms, etc.), vertical areas, new terrain themes, and some of the night level quirks. All the new enemies and blocks and such also seem great, but somehow it's the iterative improvements on what we already have that I'm most looking forward to.

Do you think we'll get a Super Mario Bros. 2 style as DLC down the road?

I think number one for me is on/off switches, and especially the fact that we now know they can do more than just turn blocks from solid to not. I'm always liked Mario Maker for the super creative things that people have managed to come up with; levels that play nothing like vanilla Mario. Moreso than "regular" Mario type levels. And the on/off blocks will add huge amounts of options for people far more creative than I to think of.

Locked scroll areas will be really great for the creation process; I made a red-coin level once (never actually finished and uploaded it); and spent a lot of frustrating time on just getting the sub-areas to be in a location where the whole "room" was on screen in an good place.

The new themes will be great for people who like to watch a lot of Mario Maker streams, just because of the variety in looks and music.

I feel like Mario 2 is actually pretty likely... based mostly off of the fact that the screen shot listing the styles showed Mario 3D world in its own section called "Extra Styles" (plural), with an obvious hole where another style would be. I've heard some different speculation on what that 6th style could be (Mario 2, Mario Land, Mario Galaxy), and it just seems like Mario 2 is most likely. Before the introduction of 3D world, I would have said "no way would that happen", due to Mario 2 being too different from the rest. But now they've shown 3D world being it's own separate thing pretty much, so Mario 2 seems more likely.

So I'm very curious how the "kill all enemies" (or "kill x number of enemies") requirement will work with checkpoints and enemy respawns when going through doors and pipes.

My best guess is that each enemy will be flagged with whether or not it has been defeated by you since you started the stage. These flags will get saved when you hit a checkpoint, similar to how it saves if you have collected a red coin. So when you defeat an enemy and then go through a door and come back, you don't have to defeat that enemy again, and defeating him again will not increase your count of how many times you have defeated that enemy type.

Also curious about the "can't touch the floor" requirement... if you do touch the floor, the goal becomes un-gettable... but will you get to just keep playing the level like normal, even though it's impossible to win? Nintendo generally does what they can to avoid letting players be in a situation where they can't win, but aren't dead either (SD lock). So will touching the floor just instantly kill you instead?

Of course, with the other goals it would be very easy to be in a situation where you can't win but aren't dead either, but it isn't necessarily possible for the game engine to know that you can't win. With the "don't touch the floor" one, the game engine can easily know.

My last submission was said to be complicated and uninteresting. I guess I'll try uncomplicated and uninteresting this time.

At first I didn't like this, because hey it's just a slightly buffed Highway. But then I realized that it's own cost reduction can't help you get more of them, which gives it a really good reason to have a Debt cost. I like it.

It's a traditional auto-scrolling airship level with a piranha plant theme. It's got a few secrets and a boss room. See if you can collect all 100 coins (the 100th coin being the one you get from getting a card at the end of the stage).

In MM2, you'll be able to require that the player collect all 100 coins!

My intent is that cost reducers like Bridge and Highway still work to reduce the debt cost of all cards except those that normally cost debt. Should I specify that on this card itself?

As worded, one could just as validly conclude that cost-reducers still work, or not. It all depends on which effect you apply first. So yes, needs a way of clarifying that (and I don't know the best wording).

What does "+$2 for each other player on their next turn" mean?Also, this should probably be an attack (it also doesn't need a line break).

I agree the wording isn't correct/ideal, but I think I understood the intention without an issue. Should probably be:

"While this is in play, at the start of each other player's turn, they get +."

The problem is, it's weird to have a duration-effect that depends on your choice; you have to remember on opponent's turns if you chose that option or not. I don't know if there's a good way to do that.

Maybe this has been addressed somewhere, but I can't find it. Why does Royal Carriage have a clause that it can't replay a card that has left play, while Citadel does not have that clause?

I don't know if it was the only reason, but without that clause, you could play Royal Carriage infinitely, calling it to reply itself each time. One could argue that this is no different than how you can reveal Moat infinitely for no effect; though it actually matters with Conspirator or any of the token bonuses.

I've said it before; but I definitely think Ruined Library instead of Ruined Smithy. The Ruins would make a lot more sense as buildings or places instead of people. It's effect could be +1 card, or possibly draw to 5 cards in hand.

Mercury's gift will hurt players more often than it will help... at the least the gaining should be optional; even then it will often just do nothing as players will choose not to gain.

Updated for Venus's wording: "Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a victory card. Set it aside for the rest of the game. Discard the other revealed cards." You should avoid having "draw", because then you would be adding the cards to your hand.

Similar for Mars; you don't "draw" Hexes. See wording on Fool. "Take 3 Hexes. Choose one for other players to receive. Return the others."

Jupiter's gift also needs wording updates; as maybe an action card didn't reveal it. It could have been a treasure, like Idol. Or maybe it wasn't revealed, like Druid. Perhaps you meant "the card that caused you to receive this". That could work, though if it was Blessed Village, there are possibly lose-track issues since it was on-gain.

I was thinking Junk Dealer would be the place to look. Basically instead of and 1 card. And then the various differences between action and treasure, which I think tend overall slightly favor treasure due to not being able to draw dead.